Breaking: Lieberman tries the smear
Word from a commenter on mydd.com, and confirmed from a source on the ground is that either the Lieberman campaign, or his proxies, are blanketing African-American churches with fliers that imply that Ned Lamont is a racist. It is the final meltdown in the hysterical last days of Joe Lieberman's attempt to hold on to power inside the Democratic Party.
Internal polling numbers from the Lieberman camp indicate that only "low information voters" have yet to find out that Lamont is the anti-Iraq candidate in the race. Lieberman's operation has geared up every van in Connecticut to try and turn out voters who have not yet recieved full information. In paleo-politics this tactic was called "the bomb" - dropped late, before the other campaign could respond.
The Lamont campaign is confident, they still have cards left to play to stem the last minute thrash from Lieberman, and feel that Maxine Waters and other African American campaigners have blunted the Clinton moment. Clinton is respected in the community, but without reinforcement it is only one message.
Lieberman proxies have tried to emphasize how collegial and nice Lieberman is, however, the Lieberman campaign is rapidly proving that the patina of niceness is the result of not having been challenged for reëlection. When challenged, Lieberman and his proxies have drooled with bile and thrashed attacks which are so over the top, that one questions whether those who have come up with them have truly finished adolescing. "The End of Democracy" and FT's Chris Caldwell screamed into his keyboard? Please, grow up.
All of the indications are towards a bruising last week, however available numbers show that Lieberman peaked last week with the beginning of the Levant crisis - when being a mad bomber was temporarily in style. However, after the shock, the grind of Iraq has returned to the center stage. The grind of a dying economic expansion - which will be the shortest since the 1970's - and the grind of gas prices have all brought George Bush to sub-30% approval. As this primary turns into a referendum on George Bush, Lieberman's chance of riding incumbency and senior statesman status to reëlection grow more slender with every passing day.
Lieberman and his proxies have attempted to attack Lamont's money as the way of convincing voters in the lower economic range of the Democratic party to vote against Lamont. If a Democrat, a real one, were doing it, it would immediately be labelled "class warfare." But not since racist candidates used black votes to get majorities to pass Jim Crow have voters been expected to vote so strongly against their own interests. If there is any group of people who have been hammered hardest by the Bush-Lieberman reign in government, it is the urban, the poor, and the African-American. Unemployment rates in the community are high and getting higher, crime rates have risen again, wages in real terms have fallen, the move from income taxes to regressive sales taxes has fallen disproportionately on those who spend, the casualties of the war have been those who needed to join the military the most. The list is long, and will get longer before even this Congress is out.
Lieberman, like many people who began with liberal leanings, is, himself, a bombed out husk, locked up too long in Washington DC, and suffering from Stockholm syndrome with the Republicans. His campaign has repeatedly made attacks on Lamont, and Lamon supporters, which are beneath contempt and outside the acceptable range of discourse. Lieberman isn't merely losing an election, he is losing his standing, his reputation, and indeed, his raison d'etre - a longing for a bi-partisan era of yore. The reality of the great era of bi-partisanship is that it was an era of Democratic dominance of governance. It was the era of a different constitutional principle - where government was seen acting through a constitution that was a "consensus for action". Hence bringing in the minority party - the Republicans - was part and parcel of showing that actions taken were not merely supported by a majority, but backed by a super-majority.
Under the new order ushered in by Gingrich's parliamentary congress, and cemented by Bush v Gore and 9/11, bipartisanship is a cover for the actions of the dominant party. If conservative Democrats could be told on Iraq "we don't need your vote" the era where the parties came together on the great issues is well and truly over. Lieberman represented the delusional hope that that age could be recovered, because the alternative is the need to participate and return to civic engagement. The end of Lieberman is the end of the consumerate's dream of a government on autopilot, leaving them time to ski, job, watch television or whatever life was really about, while the "details" of government were left to others.
The naked reality under the consumerate government, however, was that it often had to put its thumb on the scales, and use slander, or vote suppression, or bribery, in order to hold on to slender majorities in Congress. Majorities which, instead of serving the public interest, served the public to special interests. Even 75% of Republicans believe that the minimum wage should be increased, and yet the reactionary Congress feels it has to attach yet another tax break for the ultra-wealthy to it.
Lieberman's campaign has crossed the line from electioneering to smearing, and may well, depending on the manner and content of the fliers, have ventured beyond the line of legality. The line of cordial democracy based on informed electorates deciding between clear alternatives has long since been left in the dust. And it is not the Lamont campaign, nor his supporters, which have done this.
If Lamont wins the primary - which seems now more likely than not - the general election will be about exactly one issue - judgment. It is the ultimate basis for politics. Lieberman's record is of an individual who when given a chance to exercise his own judgment has either engaged in massive folly - such as Iraq - or in mean spirited smears, as his campaign or its proxies have now. This lack of judgment is what made the New York Times decide to endorse Lamont in the primary - a huge step for a paper which was practically an arm of the Republican Party in invading Iraq.
It reminds me a little of the shrillness of George Bush, the Elder's presidential campaign, in the late stages, when the realization that he was losing to Bill Clinton set in.
July 30, 2006 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stirling, the flyer was definitely from the Lieberman campaign, not a proxy. It was placed on windshields of cars parked in church parking lots during services. It was accompanied by a standard piece of Lieberman lit.
The bottom of the flyer said that it was authorized and paid for by Friends of Joe Lieberman and printed "in-house with volunteer labor". (Yet again the Lieberman campaign avoids patronizing union copy shops.)
The front of the flyer had a picture of Lieberman with Clinton and mentioned Lieberman's civil rights accomplishments of 40 years ago - marching with MLK and working on voting rights in Mississippi.
The back was about Ned Lamont cancelling his membership in the expensive Round Hill Country Club in Greenwich, including a quote from the New York times in which Ned acknowledged that most of the members of the club were white. The contrast was obviously implying that Ned Lamont is a rich racist.
The flyer was on the windshield of my family's car at a Catholic church.
...aka "Maura in CT", now back in the Nutmeg State...
July 30, 2006 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, I don't think anything in the flyers is illegal. Immoral, maybe, but it's all technically true.
The sad fact is that Joe Lieberman's class war approach, while despicable and reprehensible, is also effective. I've talked with many people who say they don't want to vote for a rich Greenwich millionaire. If I'm lucky enough to actually reach such a voter who is receptive to listening, I am almost always successful in convincing them to see the real Ned Lamont, the successful small businessman who volunteers one day a week at Harding High School in Bridgeport.
But "low information voters", those that Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith specializes in, are out there in droves. And if we can't reach them personally to dispel the Lieberman smears, the best we can hope for is that they won't care enough to vote.
What makes me even more worried than these flyers is the whisper campaign that accompanies them. First it was hearing that leaders at black churches in Hartford and New Haven were telling people that Ned Lamont owned "millions" of shares of Halliburton. Then last night in New Haven a couple of people were saying that they heard there was a rumor going around that Ned Lamont's grandfather was a founder of the KKK.
The flyer is distasteful and just shows how low the Lieberman campaign will stoop to retain power, but it's technically accurate and legal. The whisper campaign, though, if it originates from the Lieberman camp, is another story.
...aka "Maura in CT", now back in the Nutmeg State...
July 30, 2006 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain/Lieberman '08!
July 31, 2006 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're perfect for one another. Both men are about as authentic as the Cracker Barrel.
July 31, 2006 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should be trivial to get the literature up on the web, no? It's probably true, but why not do the obvious and put it on the web instead of relying on a commenter at some blog with an agenda?
July 31, 2006 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this is true it is really shameful.
How can Lieberman live with himself?
I guess power trumps morality, even among the religious.
July 31, 2006 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shame that Lieberman wasn't willing to fight this hard when he was running for Vice-President.
July 31, 2006 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for spreading the word on this; pretty disheartening (poor Joe really has been hanging around the Republicans too long...).
And thanks for noting so clearly the difference between bipartisanship and "bipartisanship" -- as I've labored to explain to acquaintances, it's much the same as the difference between governing (by those who actually believe in government) and "governing" (by those who just see government as a power tool and piggy bank).
July 31, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link to the flyer:
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2417
July 31, 2006 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link to the flyer:
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2417
July 31, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez. Lamont has Joe pegged. Not only does he sound just like a right-wing republican on Iraq, Now he's campaigning like a right-wing republican.
Maybe Karl Rove dropped by to help.
How appalling.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
July 31, 2006 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good tip.
I was convinced Lieberman might win on local issues and/or voters wouldn't want to trade in Joe's "clout" for a rookie.
But rethinking it, a Senator's power is less watered down due to the sheer numbers involved in the House.
More importantly, I'm hoping these cynical tactics will backfire - to me that's more important than Joe's GOP suck up. Let's pray Joes' GOP tactics will be his undoing.
August 1, 2006 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't he the great-grandson of JP Morgan's banking partner- Thomas Lamont?
August 1, 2006 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That flyer is very effective.
How people claim not to pay attention to race in America is absolutely disingenuous and particularly when they fraternize is primarily white environments. Such behavior screams "I only pay attention to MY race. Whatever else is there that matters?" particularly when they have the unmitigated gall to actually verbalize such racist ignorance. geez
After all, how else could one claim not to 'notice'?
An American saying they are color blind is the same as saying I am so racist, I only see my own race.
It is the same as a Hooters male patron saying they never notice a woman's breast size...riiiiight
What Lamont should have said, was that yes he was a member and that he felt it would be great if the club did a better job with diversity. But to say 'I never noticed"? puhleeeeze
But that crap about not noticing until he was in a political race..is sheer bullshyt and the voters the flyer is aimed at know it.
August 1, 2006 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Lamont needs minority votes to win in the primary, he just lost them with this flyer. Minorities do not like war but as a community they are one of the most patriotic ethnic groups in terms of their sons and daughters committing to serve America. There are generations deep of military legacy in minority families.
Liebermans track record on civil rights will be more important as an issue for that group of voters than America pulling out of Iraq. Their kids may fight and serve in America's wars, but their families know full well that is their rights as citizens here at home that count waaaaay more in terms of quality of life than any friggin war on foreign soil. The military pays well, has great benefits and the minority families have been served well by the military especially when unemployment is high domestically. Minoritiy unemployment is in the double digits and has been since Bush's first term.
All of which means Lieberman's civil rights record is strong, meaningful and certainly worth a vote.
August 1, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The response of Black voters will be interesting. While Blacks are patriotic and do serve in proportions greater than their percentage in the population, there may be an ongoing change. In March of 2005, the DOD released a study showing a steady decline in Black recruitment since 2000. If this was do to improved economics, you are correct that increased unemployment will reverse the trend. If other factors, such as the 9% vote of confidence that GW got from the Black community nationally in 2004 are responsible, the numbers will remain low.
If Bush continues to be seen as a pariah and Lieberman is seen as a proxy for Bush, he may feel the brunt of ongoing anger over GW's re-relection.
I think one thing not touched upon by MSM concerning GW and the Black community is the feeling that the GOP is anti-affirmative action until it comes to an undereducated, biscuit biting (see video of GW with Blair at G8 conference), airhead White rich guy from the East Coast who plays at being a cowboy, possessed with speaking skills that would have caused Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice to be laughed of the stage early in their careers.
Gee, I hope that run-on sentence doesn't make you think I don't respect the guy. However my sentiments regarding Bush are MILD compared to what I heard from family members at our last family reunion a year ago. I mean Catholics, Methodist preachers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers, bankers, etc. were uniformly upset with GW being in the White House. If Lamont can tap into that Bush discontent and tie Lieberman to it, he gets the Black vote.
The TPMCafe main page has a story about Rev. Al Sharpton taking issue with Lieberman's attempt to smear Lamont. I don't know enough about the Black community in Conn. to comment on whether that will be a plus or a minus.
August 1, 2006 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to suspect those numbers are as fudged as the votes in FL. Although, I have heard minorities say they liked Bush on the basis of him being religious, especially as pertains to gays and the marriage.
I see your point but I kinda think that the minority community somewhat fragments national elections into what happens to the rest of the world vs. themselves. Such that they can hate Bush but they also know that domestic policy impacts them waaay more than foreign policy...i.e. Kanye West..so in that sense I see Lieberman getting the vote vs. Lamont the exclusive white country club member for 16 years who never 'noticed' race.
Yes! Bush is suc h a disgrace with his inarticulate ignorant incompetence. I just recently read that Lieberman does not have a good track record on affirmative action and he is pro-voucher so he may just have an uphill battle in the black community. What good is your 40 year old civil rights record when you vote against affirmative action, today which would sustain those gains? Also, the minority community in Connecticut is not pro-voucher, ( Lieberman is) they see charter schools as dismantling the public education system ..so Lieberman has a number of strikes against him, in addition to being a Bush sycophant. Minority turnout could be low since Lamont is a real big question mark...other than his country club pedigree .He is not bringing anything to the table in terms of minority interests, so far, that has been demonstrated.
Yes, I think I have to agree with this sentiment.
Well I will have to check that out. I read a few articles on Lieberman and his schmooze is about done I think based on his political style of being totally affable and then voting the complete opposite of what you think his demeanor has you to believe his stance is. He has sucked up to Bush too much for me...if I were in Connecticut..he would not get my vote.
Of course, that does not mean Lamont would...since I know next to nothing about him but when someone has belonged to an exclusively white club for 16 years or since the 90s...it gives me pause...I distrust people who belong to social groups that lack ethnic diversity.
My experience is that individuals like that are too insular and unused to diversity of thought which is why they only socialize with their WASPY old money same race clique. Diversity makes them uncomfortable..and who the heck needs that in Washington, today...especially with the wars being fought between people of color in the ME, and Africa...if some person can't handle color or different ethnicities and races today in America they definitely do not need to be given a national platform to represent this country. Let them stay their homogeneity seeking butt at home.
August 1, 2006 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
whiterosebuddy wrote
My experience is that individuals like that are too insular and unused to diversity of thought which is why they only socialize with their WASPY old money same race clique. Diversity makes them uncomfortable..and who the heck needs that in Washington, today...especially with the wars being fought between people of color in the ME, and Africa...if some person can't handle color or different ethnicities and races today in America they definitely do not need to be given a national platform to represent this country. Let them stay their homogeneity seeking butt at home.
So who's the GOP running again :)
August 1, 2006 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
lmao!!....you got me ...hahaha
and that is why voter turnout will be low in the minority community for that very reason.
August 1, 2006 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have enough respect for other races to know they see through bullshit like that flyer.
Soon after I moved to this little rural Connecticut town because the schools were so good, I was at an elementary school play when a neighbor asked me what was missing. I didn't know. She said "diversity." My father was Cuban, but my daughter has blonde hair and bllue eyes. looks just like me--just "whiter."
Yeah, us dumb ass white Connecticut Yankees sometimes don't notice crap like that. Even us dumb ass white Connecticut Yankees that grew up in the San Fernando Valley in California where they was PLENTY of diversity.
I didn't notice it then, either.
Maybe some of us ARE color blind, and if we don't "notice" these things, it is to our credit.
I tend to take people as they come. Skin color? What? I grew up with a Spanish surname, I always thought racist comments were pretty stupid. Your comment qualifies. Lets stir the pot, shall we?
(rolling eyes, bigtime)
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 2, 2006 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOW RUDE!
You should all support our President and support Joe Lieberman.
August 6, 2006 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink